This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

by FOXNews.com
Senior administration officials told the New York Times that the financial implications of more troops has become a volatile issue as the president works to push a costly health care plan through Congress and the government budget deficit is soaring.

Concerns over funding additional forces in Afghanistan are adding pressure to President Obama as he weighs plans to move forward in the region, the New York Times reported.

Senior administration officials told the Times that the financial implications of more troops has become a volatile issue as the president works to push a costly health care plan through Congress and the government budget deficit is soaring.

The cost estimates of adding 40,000 U.S. forces and increasing Afghan security are $40 to $54 billion a year according to officials, and even if less troops are sent, the White House formula would remain constant at about $1 million per soldier.

So let me see if I have this straight....Billions in bail out funds for those who demo's are now painting as 'greedy', and unworthy. More than a Trillion for a stimulus package that was really little more than a boon of pork, and a thousand pages. And now considering a 2 thousand page 'Health care' package that costs over a Trillion that is nothing but a hammer of control over peoples lives.

All the while Obama travels the globe on his never ending apology tour, bowing to emperors, and Saudi Kings, and never addressing a direct question on whether or not he thinks that the decision to use 'the bomb' in WWII, ultimately saving hundreds of thousands of lives in the long run, was a good one.

This man is feckless, and a coward in my estimation, and the world sees it. Coming up on a year, and no accomplishments, other than spending this country into a grave, and transforming America into a laughing stock while emboldening our enemies, and giving rise to one world control through the UN.

What say you Charles?

Originally Posted by Charles Krauthammer

The genius of democracy is the rotation of power, which forces the opposition to be serious -- particularly about things like war, about which until Jan. 20 of this year Democrats were decidedly unserious.

When the Iraq war (which a majority of Senate Democrats voted for) ran into trouble and casualties began to mount, Democrats followed the shifting winds of public opinion and turned decidedly antiwar. But needing political cover because of their post-Vietnam reputation for weakness on national defense, they adopted Afghanistan as their pet war.

"I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as 'the right war' to conventional Democratic wisdom," wrote Democratic consultant Bob Shrum shortly after President Obama was elected. "This was accurate as criticism of the Bush administration, but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy."

Which is a clever way to say that championing victory in Afghanistan was a contrived and disingenuous policy in which Democrats never seriously believed, a convenient two-by-four with which to bash George Bush over Iraq -- while still appearing warlike enough to fend off the soft-on-defense stereotype.

Brilliantly crafted and perfectly cynical, the "Iraq war bad, Afghan war good" posture worked. Democrats first won Congress, then the White House. But now, unfortunately, they must govern. No more games. No more pretense.

So what does their commander in chief do now with the war he once declared had to be won but had been almost criminally under-resourced by Bush?

Perhaps provide the resources to win it?

You would think so. And that's exactly what Obama's handpicked commander requested on Aug. 30 -- a surge of 30,000 to 40,000 troops to stabilize a downward spiral and save Afghanistan the way a similar surge saved Iraq.

That was more than five weeks ago. Still no response. Obama agonizes publicly as the world watches. Why? Because, explains national security adviser James Jones, you don't commit troops before you decide on a strategy.

No strategy? On March 27, flanked by his secretaries of defense and state, the president said this: "Today I'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan." He then outlined a civilian-military counterinsurgency campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan.

And to emphasize his seriousness, the president made clear that he had not arrived casually at this decision. The new strategy, he declared, "marks the conclusion of a careful policy review."

Conclusion, mind you. Not the beginning. Not a process. The conclusion of an extensive review, the president assured the nation, that included consultation with military commanders and diplomats, with the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, with our NATO allies and members of Congress.

snip

Against Emanuel and Biden stand Gen. David Petraeus, the world's foremost expert on counterinsurgency (he saved Iraq with it), and Stanley McChrystal, the world's foremost expert on counterterrorism. Whose recommendation on how to fight would you rely on?

Less than two months ago -- Aug. 17 in front of an audience of veterans -- the president declared Afghanistan to be "a war of necessity." Does anything he says remain operative beyond the fading of the audience applause?

Re: Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

$1 Million per soldier? Man, we spend more money on one soldier, and on one bomb than the entire opposition has in their coffers.

Yet, we're still having to place the defensive game.

"I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

Re: Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

IMO, the U.S. should be careful to ensure that it makes sufficient investments in the military so as to meet the requirements that arise from its critical overseas interests. Needless to say, the hint of competition for funding between military needs and health care-related objectives is something that will become far more pronounced in the years ahead if the nation does not embark on a credible and sustained fiscal consolidation effort following the recession. A credible fiscal consolidation program would address the imbalances associated with the nation's mandatory spending programs.

At the same time, the growing cost differentials between the U.S. military and its foes is worrisome. In the long-run, financial considerations could give U.S. enemies an asymmetric advantage e.g., they would merely have to endure until the U.S. consumes its resources to the extent that the military efforts become politically unsustainable. Narrowing what is a growing cost-disadvantage is something that will need to be examined in a thoughtful and deliberate manner.

Re: Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

Fox has already been caught lying about Obama and his war-plans (citing "unnamed officials" as sources) once this week.
Come on.
This is just another feeble attempt to push him in the direction they want him to go.
"Obama's too cheap to protect our troops! He'd rather spend our tax dollars on giving free abortions to the poor!"

Re: Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

Originally Posted by 1069

Fox has already been caught lying about Obama and his war-plans (citing "unnamed officials" as sources) once this week.
Come on.
This is just another feeble attempt to push him in the direction they want him to go.
"Obama's too cheap to protect our troops! He'd rather spend our tax dollars on giving free abortions to the poor!"

Who cares what anyone who takes Fox News seriously thinks?

Care to back that up?

And please cite the evidence you have if the information was incorrect that Fox News knew their source was lying.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.John Adams

Re: Military Spending Weighs on Obama's Afghan Decision

At least there is someone in the US political system that does not give a cart blanc to the military. All government spending should be under review including military spending.

yeah, let' put a price tag on soldier's lives.

Originally Posted by americanwoman

So there is absolutely no evidence this woman, whom you called a slut, did this but you are ready to take someone's word as evidence. Guess you don't think witch hunts have to end when it's going after the certain people.